Michigan Senate Passes Animal Cruelty Bill Which Includes Sodomy Ban

[eldirector]

Wait... choking the chicken is sodomy? Or animal cruelty?

 

[HoughMade]

The year is 1967 and DRob is hired by IPD. He, and his recruit classmates, are issued a 3 ring binder titled Criminal Law for Indiana Police Officers. There is a crime listed in that binder called Sodomy with partial wording as follows, "Whoever commits that detestable crime against nature with either man or beast is guilty of sodomy". Each listed crime included the essential elements (what you had to prove to get a conviction) as well as any related court opinions. I distinctly remember one of those court decisions was "A chicken is a beast as defined under this statute". Sorry I can't provide the specific case. I wonder who would have been called to testify on behalf of nature!

Murray v. State, 143 N.E.2d 290, 292 (Ind. 1957).

...in more recent legal news:

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/...-charged-again-after-prompting-bestiality-law

 

[level.eleven]

So, if I have this right:

1. Michigan had an existing criminal sodomy statute (as did Indiana until 1977) which was never enforced.

2. Michigan recriminalizes bestiality (as did Indiana).

3. There is some strange free-floating language left over by a staff attorney during the 17th rewrite that the True Guardians of Liberty fixate on.

4. Michigan removes the strange free-floating language.

5. Everyone overreacts and claims this is a blow (yes, yes I did) against Liberty.

Do I have it right?

Ahh...the overzealous staffer response.

This was a play by the hard right to any objective observer. Same as Indiana. The crazy part about the Indiana extremists is that they tried it again.

I agree with HOUGH, a waste of time. It is time to grow up.

 

[Lil Bob]

Wait... choking the chicken is sodomy? Or animal cruelty?

Depends on who owns the chicken I believe.

 

[ghuns]

I guess the truly less gentile version would have been: "freedom took a putz in the tuchus."

Don't stop man, you're rollin.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Close....very close.

I would have gone with the less gentile: "freedom took it in the *** ", but basically you're right.

As originally posted...does this mean that it makes a legal difference to engage in such behavior with, well, an untrimmed turtleneck?

Wait... choking the chicken is sodomy? Or animal cruelty?

In either case, if it happens on Saturday, you have to kill the chicken for working on the Sabbath.

(Seriously, the Pharisees observed a law indicating that if a chicken laid an egg on the Sabbath, you could keep the egg, but had to kill the chicken for working on the Sabbath.)

 

[indiucky]

I am shocked somebuddy on INGO caught my gay pun.

But notice how I removed the pic? Gotta reestablish my hetero street cred.

Too late......

[video=youtube;kRb3u0PtEZE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRb3u0PtEZE[/video]

Just so I get this straight...The hard left made a play to redefine marriage and were successful in their endeavor thanks to POTUS Supreme Court picks....Michigan wants to make sure folks are not sexually abusing animals and the faithful Atheiatarians are worried that their Flying Spaghetti Monster given rights are being threatened?

That's funny right there...

 

[steveh_131]

Take note that there haven't yet been any actual libertarians in here complaining about this.

 

[indiucky]

Take note that there haven't yet been any actual libertarians in here complaining about this.

Atheiatarians brother...A different breed altogether...


Most Libertarians I have met believe in the whole "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" scenario because if rights are granted by man, then they can also be taken away by man...Atheiatarians struggle because Darwinian Evolutionary theory was the catalyst for Marxism and later National Socialism of Germany in the 1930's...Two ideologies that were (and are) at odds with individual liberty...It puts them in a quandary because they love freedom, but know there is no justification for freedom in a Darwinian sense...They need a boogeyman to justify their Bertrand Russell/Satre/Nietzsche style of Nihilism and vague "right wing, religious fundamentalists" fill the roll of a villain very nicely for them...

It doesn't require thought and it makes them seem intellectual (at least in the mirror) and it does provide a form of comfort....

There are many thoughtful, caring, intelligent Atheists here on INGO...They can (and do) make a reasonable case for freedom without a Creator...I count two (whom I have never met) as friends....I am not referring to them but to the Atheiatarians who rely on snark and ad hominen attacks rather than logic and ideas to make their case....

I am a Libertarian....The National Libertarian Party just keeps nominating statists to run and I can't get behind the Libertarian Establishment candidates...

 

[steveh_131]

Most Libertarians I have met believe in the whole "We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights" scenario because if rights are granted by man, then they can also be taken away by man...Atheiatarians struggle because Darwinian Evolutionary theory was the catalyst for Marxism and later National Socialism of Germany in the 1930's...Two ideologies that were (and are) at odds with individual liberty...It puts them in a quandary because they love freedom, but know there is no justification for freedom in a Darwinian sense...They need a boogeyman to justify their Bertrand Russell/Satre/Nietzsche style of Nihilism and vague "right wing, religious fundamentalists" fill the roll of a villain very nicely for them...

Who in this thread are you referring to? level.eleven may be an atheist but he certainly doesn't care about individual liberty.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who in this thread are you referring to? level.eleven may be an atheist but he certainly doesn't care about individual liberty.

My usual suspect hasn't made an appearance in this thread (yet). That said, he has made it abundantly clear he would happily sell out the Second Amendment for sodomy.

I see the larger problem is that so many among us (INGO, not society in general) who profess liberty are interested in only their favored little cutout and beyond that are willing or even demand going full statist, indicating to my satisfaction a clear lack of understanding the principle of liberty.

 

[steveh_131]

I see the larger problem is that so many among us (INGO, not society in general) who profess liberty are interested in only their favored little cutout and beyond that are willing or even demand going full statist, indicating to my satisfaction a clear lack of understanding the principle of liberty.

Careful now, you're starting to sound like a purist.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Careful now, you're starting to sound like a purist.

I know. Opposing government intervention in the absence of actually harming others is a truly radical concept.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

When I first read the thread title I missed the word "ban" as it had fallen to the second line and was hiding over there. Now I'm disappoint.

Arguing about Libertarians is almost as pointless as arguing with us. I've learned better.